Observational studyBMJ open2017
Assessing the impact of colonoscopy complications on use of colonoscopy among primary care physicians and other connected physicians: an observational study of older Americans.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the algorithm: reframing biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship with behavioural insights.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Influence of multiple network structures on bayesian estimation of peer effects and statistical power for generalized linear network autocorrelation models.Applied network science · 2025Article
- Exploiting relationship directionality to enhance statistical modeling of peer-influence across social networks.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Changes in Cancer Screening Rates Following a New Cancer Diagnosis in a Primary Care Patient Panel.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- The Influence of the Availability Heuristic on Physicians in the Emergency Department.Annals of emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- DNA methylation detection methods used in colorectal cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPsychological biases can distort treatment decision-making. The availability heuristic is one such bias, wherein events that are recent, vivid or easily imagined are readily 'available' to memory and are therefore judged more likely to occur than expected based on epidemiological data. We assessed if the occurrence of a serious colonoscopy complication for a primary care physician's patient influenced colonoscopy rates for the physician's other patients.
designLongitudinal study with time-varying exposure variables. SETTING/
participantsIndividuals living in 51 hospital referral regions across the USA identified based on enrolment in fee-for-service Medicare during 2005-2010. We assigned patients to a primary care physician based on office visits during the prior 2 years. EXPOSURES: For each physician in each month, we calculated the proportion of patients assigned to them who had a colonoscopy. We identified two serious complications of which the primary care provider would very likely be aware: gastrointestinal bleed or perforation leading to hospitalisation or death within 14 days of colonoscopy.
main outcome measuresWe employed Poisson regression models including physician fixed effects to assess the change in number of colonoscopies in the four quarters following an adverse colonoscopy event.
resultsWe identified 5 360 191 patients assigned to 30 704 physicians. 4864 physicians (16%) had at least one patient with an adverse event. The estimated change in the quarterly number of colonoscopies among physicians' patients was significantly lower in quarter 2 following an adverse colonoscopy event (change=-2.1% (95% CI -3.4 to -0.8%)), before returning to the rate expected in the absence of an adverse event.
conclusionsHaving a patient experience a serious adverse colonoscopy event was associated with a small and temporary decline in colonoscopy rates among a physician's other patients. This finding provides empirical evidence for the influence of notable adverse events on care, possibly due to the availability heuristic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.